United States v. Berkeley Heartlab, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-169-17, 7 pp.) (Richard Mark Gergel, J.) 9:14-cv-00230; D.S.C. Holding: Defendants’ proposed expert – a lawyer who didn’t review documents which advised defendants that the “processing and handling fees” they were ...Read More »
Estate of Ravenell v. Pugmill Systems, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-250-14, 23 pp.) (Patrick Michael Duffy, J.) 2:13-cv-00815; D.S.C. Holding: A civil engineer, who lacks training or experience in the area of design or safety of asphalt plants, pugmills, or ...Read More »
Tort/Negligence – Products Liability – Automatic Doors – Personal Injury — Documentary Evidence – Insufficient
Morris v. Dorma Automatics, Inc. After failing to timely name an expert witness, plaintiff also failed to produce sufficient documentary evidence to show the defendants’ automatic doors had a manufacturing defect. Plaintiff’s documentary evidence consisted of repair orders, which were not specific enough to show they related to the same problem that plaintiff had identified as the cause of her injury.
Tagged with: Expert WitnessRead More »
State v. Tapp Even though the trial court should have ruled on expert testimony’s reliability, the court’s failure to do so was harmless error since the expert did not testify about the facts critical to the jury’s decision.Read More »
Tort reform and the stagnating economy have taken a toll on the expert business, though not necessarily to the extent some might expect. “With tort reform hitting hard in a lot of states, we’re seeing a big push towards mass tort work by the plaintiff’s bar,” said Eric Eckhardt, head of development and sales for Pennsylvania-based Robson Forensics. “So for example, if plaintiff’s lawyers can’t try a case effectively in Texas, they’re moving towards trying cases nationally. They’re networking with other plaintiff’s lawyers to get the payout.”Read More »